Life sciences · 2009
Sleep, activity, temperature and arousal responses of mice deficient for muscarinic receptor M2 or M4.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turner Jeremy, Hughes Larry F, Toth Linda A
Аннотация
AIMS: The type 2 muscarinic receptor (M2R) differs from the other G-protein-coupled muscarinic receptor (type 4, or M4R) in tissue distribution and physiologic effects. We studied the impact of these receptors on sleep and arousal by using M2R and M4R knock-out (KO) mice.
MAIN METHODS: M2R and M4R KO and genetically intact mice were compared in terms of normal patterns of sleep, responses to sleep loss, infectious challenge and acoustic startle, and acoustic prepulse inhibition of startle (PPI).
KEY FINDINGS: Under basal conditions, M2R and M4R KO mice do not differ from the background strain or each other in the amount or diurnal pattern of sleep, locomotor activity, and body temperature. After enforced sleep loss, M2R KO mice, in contrast to the other two strains, show no rebound in slow-wave sleep (SWS) time, although their SWS is consolidated, and they show a greater rebound in time spent in REMS (rapid-eye-movement sleep) and REMS consolidation. During influenza infection, M2R KO mice, as compared with the other strains, show marked hypothermia and a less robust increase in SWS. During Candida albicans infection, M2R KO mice show a greater increase in SWS and a greater inflammatory response than do the other strains. M2R KO mice also show greater acoustic startle amplitude than does the background strain, although PPI was not different across the 3 strains over a range of stimulus intensities.
SIGNIFICANCE: Taken together, these findings support different roles for M2R and M4R in the modulation of sleep and arousal during homeostatic challenge.
MAIN METHODS: M2R and M4R KO and genetically intact mice were compared in terms of normal patterns of sleep, responses to sleep loss, infectious challenge and acoustic startle, and acoustic prepulse inhibition of startle (PPI).
KEY FINDINGS: Under basal conditions, M2R and M4R KO mice do not differ from the background strain or each other in the amount or diurnal pattern of sleep, locomotor activity, and body temperature. After enforced sleep loss, M2R KO mice, in contrast to the other two strains, show no rebound in slow-wave sleep (SWS) time, although their SWS is consolidated, and they show a greater rebound in time spent in REMS (rapid-eye-movement sleep) and REMS consolidation. During influenza infection, M2R KO mice, as compared with the other strains, show marked hypothermia and a less robust increase in SWS. During Candida albicans infection, M2R KO mice show a greater increase in SWS and a greater inflammatory response than do the other strains. M2R KO mice also show greater acoustic startle amplitude than does the background strain, although PPI was not different across the 3 strains over a range of stimulus intensities.
SIGNIFICANCE: Taken together, these findings support different roles for M2R and M4R in the modulation of sleep and arousal during homeostatic challenge.